There Is a Profound Nobility in Crafting a Life That Has No Dependency on the Forced Sacrifice of Others

The ultimate charity is to need no charity

A near-ubiquitous prevailing opinion has formed throughout society based on the belief that a high morality is to dismiss all personal desire and craft an identity built around sacrifice for others. An inherent and inevitable byproduct of this belief system is the acceptance that when voluntary charity is not readily available the government has a reasonable mandate to leverage the use of force to ensure individual sacrifice in the name of a collective good. 

In essence, it is noble to sacrifice oneself to give to others but it is not immoral for others to accept your sacrifice so that they can thrive. We have effectively created an oxymoron that suggests it is immoral to "not give" but there is no ethical imperative to "not take."

In contrast, however, it is plainly obvious that a preferable utopian ideal would be a situation that requires that no individual "takes" above a society that demands every individual "sacrifice." Such a utopia is as unrealistic as socialism because it fails to address the hierarchy of human ability as well as the spectrum of human motivation. The pairing of these factors ensures that it is almost certain that humanity would ever reach a point of all individuals becoming self-reliant. 

Unlike socialism, an individualist ideal paints the path to a positive future as improvement along this road leads to a wealthier society that enjoys a greater degree of liberty and thus a continually improving quality of life. (In contrast, movement towards the socialism ideal tends to lead to an ever expansion of suffering until societal collapse)

There should be an easily agreed upon consensus that the chief contributing factor towards the fundamental basis of our morality should be driven by the goal to reduce suffering and allow for the greatest number of individuals to experience a fulfilling, happy existence so long as that existence does not have dependence on infringing on the liberty and/or sovereignty of others. (In a nutshell, Adams' American Dream)

In more simplistic terms. You are responsible for your happiness and success. You are not responsible for the happiness and success of others. You can, however, choose to voluntarily contribute to the happiness and success of others. In fact, assuming that you are fully self-supportive it can be wonderful to contribute to another achieving the same so long as your aide does not replace the need to pursue self-reliance.

Charity does not come from government. A critical component in charity is that it is voluntary. Government fills its coffers as a result of forcibly liberated resources under threat of violence. When a government acts charitably it is merely imposing forced wealth redistribution from those who are self-reliant to those who are not. This only leads down a road of dependence which incentivizes individuals to pursue a life of entitlement rather than one of responsibility. 

The greatest change you can lead is one of example. Do not accept welfare. Invest in continual self-improvement towards independence. Be willing to sacrifice for yourself. Accept that to act selfishly is not to be immoral. Society will never change quickly but you can. Build your ethical structure around the concept of "not taking" and be amazing at how your life improves and also improves the lives of those around you. When you thrive, you inspire and motivate others to do the same. 

I would rather starve of my volition than engorge on resources taken from others.